Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*
G.R. No. 138896. June 20, 2000.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
128
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
tal to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in suits
to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific
performance) and in actions for support, or for annulment of a
judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered
such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not
be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by
courts of first instance. The rationale of the rule is plainly that
the second class cases, besides the determination of damages,
demand an inquiry into other factors which the law has deemed to
be more within the competence of courts of first instance, which
were the lowest courts of record at the time that the first organic
laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction (Act 136
of the Philippine Commission of June 11, 1901).”
Same; Same; Same; Two Phases of Expropriation
Proceedings.—In the present case, an expropriation suit does not
involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals with the
exercise by the government of its authority and right to take
private property for public use. In National Power Corporation v.
Jocson, the Court ruled that expropriation proceedings have two
phases: “ ‘The first is concerned with the determination of the
authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain
and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts
involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of
the action, ‘of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a
lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the
public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the
payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of
the filing of the complaint.’ An order of dismissal, if this be
ordained, would be a final one, of course, since it finally disposes
of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by the Court on
the merits. So, too, would an order of condemnation be a final one,
for thereafter as the Rules expressly state, in the proceedings
before the Trial Court, ‘no objection to the exercise of the right of
condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filed or heard.’
“The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with
the determination by the court of ‘the just compensation for the
property sought to be taken.’ This is done by the Court with the
assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. The order
fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before,
and findings of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would
finally dispose of the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing
more to be done by the Court regarding the issue, x x x’ ”
129
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Case
_______________
130
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
The Facts
The RTC also dismissed the Complaint when filed before it,
holding that an action for eminent domain affected title to
real property; hence, the value of the property to be
expropriated would determine whether the case should be
filed before the MTC or the RTC. Concluding that the
action should have been filed before the MTC since the
value of the subject property was less than P20,000, the
RTC ratiocinated in this wise:
_______________
2 Rollo, p. 22.
3 Presided by Judge Mario V. Manayon.
4 Rollo, pp. 20-21.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
131
civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property with
an assessed value of less than P20,000.00 are within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts. In the case at
bar, it is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Municipal Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu, where the property
involved is located.
“The instant action for eminent domain or condemnation of
real property is a real action affecting title to or possession of real
property, hence, it is the assessed value of the property involved
which determines the jurisdiction of the court. That the right of
eminent domain or condemnation of real property is included in a
real action affecting title to or possession of real property, is
pronounced by retired Justice Jose Y. Feria, thus, ‘Real actions
are those affecting title to or possession of real property. These
include partition or condemnation
5
of, or foreclosures of mortgage
on, real property, x x x’ ”
Issue
_______________
5 Rollo, p. 22.
6 The case was deemed submitted for decision on March 16, 2000, upon
receipt by this Court of petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. Marino
E. Martinquilla of the Cebu Provincial Legal Office. Respondents’
Memorandum, signed by Atty. Eustacio Ch. Veloso, was filed on March 8,
2000.
7 Rollo, p. 25.
8 Ibid., p. 31.
132
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
_______________
9 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 5.
133
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
_______________
10 Lapitan v. Scandia, Inc., 24 SCRA 479, 481, July 31, 1968, per Reyes, J.B.L.,
J.; cited in De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 94, 99, March 6, 1998.
11 Republic v. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, 1 SCRA 646, February
28, 1961.
12 206 SCRA 520, 536, February 25, 1992, per Davide Jr., J.
134
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
_______________
135
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
Pastor
14
tion of Courts of First Instance,” the forerunners of the
regional trial courts. The said case was decided during the
effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948 which, like BP 129
in respect to RTCs, provided that courts of first instance
had original jurisdiction over “all civil actions in which the
subject of 15the litigation is not capable of pecuniary
estimation.” The 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court
were not intended to change these jurisprudential
precedents.
We are not persuaded by respondents’ argument that
the present action involves the title to or possession of a
parcel of land. They cite the observation of retired Justice
Jose Y. Feria, an eminent authority in remedial law, that
condemnation or expropriation proceedings are examples of
real actions
16
that affect the title to or possession of a parcel
of land.
Their reliance is misplaced. Justice Feria sought merely
to distinguish between real and personal actions. His
discussion on this point pertained to the nature of actions,
not to the jurisdiction of courts. In fact, in his pre-bar
lectures, he emphasizes that jurisdiction over eminent
domain cases is still within the RTCs under the 1997
Rules.
To emphasize, the question in the present suit is
whether the government may expropriate private property
under the given set of circumstances. The government does
not dispute respondents’ title to or possession of the same.
Indeed, it is not a question of who has a better title or
right, for the government does not even claim that it has a
title to the property. It merely asserts its inherent
sovereign power to “‘appropriate and control individual
property for the public benefit, as 17the public necessity,
convenience or welfare may demand.”
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED and
the assailed Orders SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court
is directed to HEAR the case. No costs.
_______________
136
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 334
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6ee339cfc61e5b0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10